Is the whole "warrior women" trope in fantasy games

>>54317318
Fantasy doesn't have to be realistic. You thinking it does triggers me more than your weak bait.

Realistic in what sense?
Historically? Practicality?

>>54317318

Nothing in fantasy games is entirely realistic

>>54317318
>Is the whole "X" trope in fantasy games entirely realistic?
Think about how fucking retarded your question is

>>54317342
And yet this thread is guaranteed to hit auto-sage.

>>54317318
No.

There are plenty of historical accounts of women warriors, gladiators, commanders, shieldmaidens, and pirates. But the whole "I am woman I am stronk!" Mentality that goes along with the trope is just writers injecting their power fantasy into their characters.

Also, very, very few of these women wore armor or clothing commonly associated with stronk warrior women, as only an idiot would wear a corset or stockings into battle.

No less realistic than centuries old talking flying dinosaurs who care about refined shiny minerals.

File: WarriorWomen.jpg (2MB, 1534x5051px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1534x5051px

>>54317318
>>54317456
Here you go!

>>54317318
I'm gonna be less autistic than some here and assume fantasy games means a setting rooted in a relatable reality with fantastical elements like LOTR or such.

It isn't very realistic, most women in medieval eras had more woman-oriented shit to do. Like childbearing. Also they massively lack upper body strength relative to even a lazy unfit man.

That being said, your picture is of an Amazon. Who, according to different stories, could be children of divinity, or just really angry warrior women, or several other things.

So I guess the real question is, are we talking about fantasy women? Or real human women in a fantasy world?

>>54317318
>realistic
>posts an image of a Demigoddess

-4 STR

>>54317318
I mean, they're more realistic than people learning to make things explode by shouting angrily at them while gesticulating wildly.

>>54317497
>I'm gonna be less autistic
>proceeds to be more autistic

>>54317318
>Is the whole "warrior women" trope in fantasy games entirely realistic?
No

>>54317318
>low quality bait.jpg

File: deal.jpg (390KB, 860x590px) Image search: [Google]

390KB, 860x590px

>>54317318
no. pic related

File: Women in military 5 - btfo by multiple amp.webm (873KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

873KB, 500x500px

>>54317489

File: 1412690984114.jpg (123KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x800px

>>54317318
>fantasy games
>realistic

stupid and irrelevant question

File: women in military 4.webm (3MB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 320x240px

>>54317619

File: Women in military 3.webm (3MB, 696x528px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 696x528px

>>54317643

File: women in military 2.webm (783KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

783KB, 480x360px

>>54317655
.

>>54317318

It's got some historical precedents, but overall isn't very realistic.

Which makes it perfect fantasy, right? Not historical, but plausible enough that you can easily include it in a setting. I'm fine with the archetype. Especially when played by Gal Godot.

File: women in military.jpg (1MB, 1552x2286px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1552x2286px

>>54317671
..

>>54317318

No. They already have high mortality with childbirth and such.

>>54317318

Also you undermine your own question when you post a pic of a fantasy warrior woman played by an actual real-life warrior woman.

>>54317671
>>54317655
>>54317643
Journalists failing at military stuff doesn't prove anything.

>>54317684
>>54317671
>>54317655
>>54317643
>>54317619
Cool. That is modern soldiery and has fuck all to do with what I posted. I happen to agree, standards shouldn't be lowered for women to play soldier, and quite frankly there probably shouldn't be mix gender units because they cannot be expected to perform to equal standards.

>>54317655
>expecting me to believe thats an actual female soldier with that haircut

Nah.

>>54317684
if a woman passes the same tests as a man there is no reason to exclude her.

The fact that women are less likely to be able to pass the test is irrelevant.

>>54317381
Yeah, but that'll be because sooner or later fetish stuff'll happen.

>>54317766
the problem of course is that in order to GET women to pass the tests and meet quotas, they are lowering the standards

File: 578a4a983a042.jpg (2MB, 2877x4000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2877x4000px

>>54317771
This thread's going to be awful either way, so we might as well cut to the chase.

>>54317684
>the need of a superior military, which is the priority of the nation, must outweigh any civil rights claim
Land of the Free

>>54317824
>Land of the Free
Home of the Brave

>>54317816
O BABY THIS IS A BLUE BOARD

>>54317684
>>the need of a superior military, which is the priority of the nation, must outweigh any civil rights claim

What about black soldiers

de-segregating the army was a civil rights issue. Mind you the army actually tended to be at the forefront of this in one way or another. Sometimes horribly, sometimes honorably. Because of military pragmatism. But never underestimate the armies ability to stick with old shit because that's how it's always been done.

File: edca2701-e09b-4244-8cc7-04a0049b81bb.jpg (13KB, 337x600px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 337x600px

>>54317318
I hope OP bursts into flames the next time he takes a shit for making this bait thread.

>>54317318
PCs tend to be exception-to-the-rule characters, so on that basis alone, yes.

But we also have plenty of evidence for women soldiers in antiquity. The Scythians did it, of course. So did Scandinavians, we've found a number of graves now where women were buried as warriors with a warrior's grave goods. Lots of cultures also trained women to fight as a last resort, like the Japanese.

>>54317381
>auto-sage
fuck off newfag

>>54317456
>just writers injecting their power fantasy into their characters
this is a problem why?

File: dahomey1.jpg (32KB, 268x474px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 268x474px

>>54317318
https://www.amazon.com/Amazons-Black-Sparta-Warriors-Dahomey/dp/0814707726

http://www.rejectedprincesses.com/women-in-combat
>On a regular basis, readers will write in saying their family, friends, or colleagues are convinced women aren’t fit for combat.

>Which drives me fucking insane, because women have been doing this for literally all of recorded history. So here’s a (totally non-comprehensive) list of women in combat roles going back to 1500 BCE. If someone starts on a “women can’t be in the military” rant, print this list out and start hitting them with it until they stop moving.

File: women_military_facts.jpg (3MB, 3056x3483px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3056x3483px

>>54317734

>>54318002
Or you could just look at scientific data
>>54318022
>>54317684

And realize that women have a significantly lower amount of muscle mass, higher risk of injury, lower general fitness, and are worse soldiers than men in all cirumstances.

>bbbubut some women were warriors in history
And they would have been demolished if they encountered men with a fraction of the training they had.

Do we have to keep having this thread?

>>54317489
pfff forgot the most bad ass chick
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ching_Shih

the few female pirates are rather neat reads

>>54318002
No one said they couldn't be in the military. No one said they weren't in combat roles throughout history. They did say that men were more fitted for it than women are, however. This is true because Men are Men, and they are the protectors, and have been since inception and are designed with this purpose in mind.

>print this list out and start hitting them with it until they stop moving.
The fact anyone wants this is worrisome.

File: female soccer players.jpg (115KB, 806x638px) Image search: [Google]

115KB, 806x638px

>>54318051
This also goes beyond military, into all realms of physical activity.

>>54317318
>thread about women
>white knights come out of the woodwork in droves
Why is /tg/ so beta?

>Fantasy doesn't necessarily have to be realistic.
>If a piece of fantastical media breaks your verisimilitude by having women in combat roles, you are welcome to not consume that media.
>Characters in fantasy are often exceptional individuals and exceptional individuals are often capable of feats outside of the statistical norm.

That's all I have to say regarding people who are against the presence of female combatants in whatever fantasy-based media they consume.

>>54318315
>Fantasy doesn't necessarily have to be realistic.
That's where you're wrong.

>>54317766
Except men and women are socially different. Makes life a whole lot more complex when you have lonely men being shot at and only one vagina around. Got to check your squad mates for ticks? Hello sexual harassment case.

It's just a bad idea all round. It's not about being able to pass the test on a single day. It's about logistics, social situations and long term sustainability. Wars tough, it's not a one day assault course and women just aren't equipped for it mentally or physically.

>>54318315
>>Fantasy doesn't necessarily have to be realistic.
Fantasy is realistic within its own world. If you have magic, magic is introduced as part of that world.

Adding a single element and incurring suspension of disbelief doesn't mean that a world is just lolrandom100%crazy and anything goes.

>>If a piece of fantastical media breaks your verisimilitude by having women in combat roles, you are welcome to not consume that media.
You're welcome to stop making it.

>>Characters in fantasy are often exceptional individuals and exceptional individuals are often capable of feats outside of the statistical norm.
The main characters can do whatever they want. If you have fantasy worlds where tiny women are running around being as strong as men in their prime, then it becomes absurd.

>>54318154

It's simple.

You're an idiot. Most people are not as shitty as you. When you say something retarded, people disagree with you. It's really not about "alpha" or "beta" or "sjw" or "cuck." You're a fucking dumbass, and you are not among friends.

>>54318383
-t. Butthurt lesbian

>>54318377
Does the inclusion of women in combat roles count as "lolradom100%crazy and anything goes?"

If so, consider the possibility that your verisimilitude might be quite fragile.

>>54318086
>they are the protectors, and have been since inception and are designed with this purpose in mind
>not knowing shit about early humans and their place on the food chain

>>54318361
Fantasy needs to be realistic in how the creative work adheres to its own established rules. If for example it follows an Earth-like physics system wherein humans can't simply lift up a giant boulder, then if a human did so without any other kind of intervention (perhaps the human was imbued with a magical elixir that gave him temporary super strength), then yes it would be "unrealistic".

File: (You).jpg (16KB, 520x520px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 520x520px

>>54317318
No.

>>54318415
That's exactly how what think, yes.

>>54318361
>>54318377
>>54318415
The word you're looking for is "internally consistent."

Realism is not necessarily equivalent to internal consistency.

There are always extraordinary people. Is it realistic that a woman could outperform some men? Sure. Women being completely equal or better then men as commonplace? No.
>>54317684
>>54318002
>a few examples out of the ENTIRE HUMAN HISTORY, literally the best of the best
>compared to countless millions of nameless men, most of whom would destroy them
>''WOMEN ARE TOTALLY EQUAL SHITLORD BLAAARGH''
How silly..

>>54318154
Because table top games lack women. The only ones they interact with are dating other men and have no interest in them. They white knight because they don't know how shit women are and bought into propaganda.

>>54318406
>Does the inclusion of women in combat roles count as "lolradom100%crazy and anything goes?"
Yes, women historically almost never took part in any sort of military activity.

You have exceptions, typically noble women who are leading an army of men. These are notable because they are exceptions, not the norm. Also, you don't typically see them charging into battle, but commanding from the rear.

You also had primitive societies where women were involved, but this was because they were small warrior clans with primitive norms that would generally welcome any fighting hand they could get. But these women would still be weaker than the men. That's just a fact of nature.

>If so, consider the possibility that your verisimilitude might be quite fragile.
The existence of men and women is something intrinsic to our entire existence. It's like having two feet. If you had a setting where people hopped around on one foot, it would just seem weird. But now you have people in modern society who have bought into the cult of equality and don't want to admit there are differences between men and women, and you have women in fiction and videogames running around basically being men but with boobs.

>>54317816

looks like her head is photoshopped in

File: Elf-fabio gets four hundred fireants in his anus.png (97KB, 175x220px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 175x220px

>>54317318
>Is the whole "elf" trope in fantasy games entirely realistic?

>>54317318
>Is the whole "warrior women" trope in fantasy games entirely realistic?

Is the whole "whiny permavirgins keeping their butt-tears confined to /r9k/" thing an impossible goal?

>>54317824
>post no doubt made by a Eurofag or Cucknadian whose freedom from being a Soviet colony was guaranteed by the shadow of the US military.

baka desu senpai

>>54317318
>Is... fantasy games entirely realistic?
No.

File: lahr.png (84KB, 357x295px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 357x295px

>>54317318

Sure, why not?

>>54317947
It isn't, and I have no issue with it at the table.

OP asked if it's realistic, and the answer, like most fantasy elements, is no, it is not. That doen't mean I don't enjoy it however.

>>54318475
Consider these two things:
>Altering the basic rules of biology so that creatures such as dragons and far more fantastical things are biologically feasible within the setting without the use of magic.
>Altering the basic rules of biology so that women are as physically capable as men while remaining identifiable as women within the setting without the use of magic.

On one hand, you've got physically impossible creatures existing within the setting without the aid of any force that defies physics.
On the other hand, you've got a group of beings of one species that are able to physically exist being capable of the same feats as another group of beings of the same species without the aid of any force that defies physics.

Which is more damaging when it comes to your suspension of disbelief?

And do you understand that your suspension of belief is subjective or do you believe that it is somehow grounded in objectivity?

>>54318562
Hey, I'm a permavirgin and I disagree with the OP too.

>>54318627
>Which is more damaging when it comes to your suspension of disbelief?
Dragons depending on how you do them. Amphibious, Komodo-like Dinosaurs with a Monster Hunter-style and some Elephant-like Water Spewing will never not be my favourite attempt at a realistic dragon. Although I think that is more like a Wyvern.

>>54317600
I always wondered why women's leagues don't ban trans candidates because of their natural testosterone. Wasn't there a trans MMA fighter who completely wiped out the competition because of male grip strength?

>>54318627
>entire society changed, biology and evolution make zero sense since both sexes can perform completely equally
>a new species added

>>54318673
Don't believe the trans-meme. It was a man who was mutilated to look somewhat like the other sex, and yes, I vaguely remember this.

>>54318673
They can't do it and claim to be for equality. Either sex doesn't matter or it does so they let women get injured for their ideological purposes. It's a cult like religion

>>54318391
shut up cuck

>>54318667
Let's go with the mainstream Western perception of a fantasy dragon then.

Extremely large four or six limbed reptile, with at least two of those limbs being flight-capable wings, coupled with the ability to project fire from its mouth due to some strange anatomy it possesses.

>>54317318

Its a fantasy game. The trope of warrior MEN isnt even 'entirely realistic'.

>>54318475
>But these women would still be weaker than the men. That's just a fact of nature.

Ummm, you're forgetting that there exist women born with XY chromosomes, who can easily grow to be as strong as any other member of humanity. Not all women are XX and thus on the small side of sexual dimorphism.

>>54318709
That's a genetic mistake. A lot of them can't even have kids.

>>54318585
>whose freedom from being a Soviet colony was guaranteed by the shadow US neo-colonialism

File: Making-of-Smaug-by-Weta-Digital-for-The-Hobbit-The-Desolation-of-Smaug-8.jpg (6KB, 250x134px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 250x134px

>>54318683
It's not just adding a new species though. It's mutilating biology to the point that a dragon like say, Smaug is biologically feasible within the setting.

Why is that degree of fucking with the rules of biology more acceptable than altering biology to allow for both sexes to perform physical tasks equally?

PC's don't need to (and probably shouldn't) reflect the general populace. You may be taking a more exclusive sample of women (maybe the top 1% in fighting ability compared to 5% or even 10% for men). You may even be taking a slice within those samples that favors upper body strength in women. And that's ignoring different societal and evolutionary (or creationist) pressures in our fantasy world (in a world without the same distinct gender roles we're used to, where as many women as men have been warriors since time immemorial, we could expect physical prowess and fighting ability would be selected for in women as strongly as for men). And even basic biology may work different in Magic Land where humanity was created from the tears of the earth goddess after blah, blah, blah. So there should be absolutely no problem with treating women identically to men as far as capabilities within a fantasy setting go.

>>54318739
Uh, yes they can. A trans woman can easily fertilize an egg with her sperm.

>>54318760
Cease.

>>54318755
>Why is that degree of fucking with the rules of biology more acceptable than altering biology to allow for both sexes to perform physical tasks equally?
Because girls are mean to anon.

>>54318709
>Ummm

>>54318760
>Um
3/10. You're trying too hard.

>>54318683
What huge cataclysmic changes to society, biology and evolution would there be exactly?

>>54318755
Pretty much justt because that guys angry about the concept of strong women for some reason.

>>54318627
>>54318755
Quality post. I'm not ironic.

Even if the average woman was as physically strong as the average man, logically you're not going to see many societies embrace "warrior women" on a large scale because of how reproduction work. The simple fact is, when it comes to reproduction, when it comes to creating new generations and ensuring your civilization lives on, women are more valuable, and men are more disposable, and there are four main reasons for this.

1) A man can knock a woman off and then run off to war and not put that child at any danger. Even if the man dies, the child will live on. A pregnant woman running off to fight is physically bringing a child onto a battlefield. If the woman dies or gets injured, the baby dies.

2) Pregnancy is very physically demanding. It weakens a woman, which is a liability on the battlefield.

3) The solution to one and two is to just not get pregnant as a woman soldier, but that means the woman is wasting her best child-bearing years fighting wars, with the potential of dying without ever producing the next generation. Meanwhile, a guy can knock up multiple women and still fight wars without having to put the baby on the battlefield or deal with being pregnant.

4) And because a man can knock up multiple women and have them all produce multiple babies around the same nine month time frame, a society can really afford to lose men. A woman can have as many partners as she can imagine and she'd still only have about one baby, same as if she only had one partner, in a nine month time frame, meaning women are more valuable and societies can't do with a lack of women. To put it another way, if one man knocked up a hundred women in one day, he'd produce about a hundred babies in a nine month time period. Meanwhile, if one woman fucked a hundred men in one day, only one would knock her up, and she'd have about one baby in a nine month time period.

>>54318755
It's not just biology. Can you imagine how society and civilization would develop if the sexes were truly equal? Let's not even get into hormones and anatomy and how those affect personality and by extension relationships and by extension society. Lets just say women are just magically as physically and mentally capable as men and completely the same as normal women in every other way. Can you even imagine how that society would look like and function? I can't, but i'm sure it would be radically different then real world and a lot of fiction.
Yes, i can imagine a fucking dragon existing much easier then the sexes being completely equal in performance and yet somehow society being identical as the norm.

>>54318827
That's worth pondering, actually.

Let's rewind back to the point where homo sapiens evolved and say that for the most part, females of the species were as physically capable as male of the species. The primary difference between the two sexes is their different roles in procreation.

How would this have changed society, along every step of the way? How would society have developed differently? More importantly, what would remain the same?

>>54318862
You really lack imagination, huh.

>>54318775
>someone said something i disagree with!
>address their argument like an adult?
>nope, screech passive-agressive slander at them
>that'll show them!

>>54318854
So your post directly contradicts the statements of >>54318683, because there would be very few societal changes even if men and women were on a level of physical capability?

I'm not accusing you of being the same anon, I just want to make sure I'm getting this right.

>>54318862
>egalitarian society impossible to imagine

File: 1499054008633m.jpg (133KB, 935x1024px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 935x1024px

>>54318627
rule of cool > suspension of disbelief

>>54318828

The reason is that he can't get any pussy and he has to knock down women any way he can so that he gets less weepy about spending the rest of his life jacking off to furry porn.

And on a related note, this kind of shit on /tg/ is exactly the reason that I sometimes go to /r9k/ just to trigger the robots.

>>54318865
What exactly would need to change about it? The biggest differences obviously would be that females would inhabit positions of power all throughout history and female warriors would be more common. But other than that what exactly would have to change

>>54318865
>The primary difference between the two sexes is their different roles in procreation.
I don't know, but I sort of suspect that is the root cause of the rest of the physical differences. Human females didn't have to develop upper-body strength to pass on their genes.

>>54318865

Things would be the same - women would probably be able to inherit since they'd be seen as just as powerful as the men of the family - of course since pregnancy and periods are a still a thing, men would probably have still spent most of history claiming that women were too wild and illogical and stupid to have power.

So probably not much would change in a historical/fantasy historical setting other than maybe less violent crimes against women since they're more likely to be able to effectively fight back in this setting.

>>54318854
You're assuming the majority of your young adult population is going to be soldiers. To my understanding the numbers are generally much smaller - Rome's population was in the tens of millions, and their standing armies were in the hundreds of thousands, for example.

If the vast majority of your population is back at home on the farms, building cities, mining, and otherwise supporting our infrastructure, then the reproductive system isn't nearly as much of an issue. And if you're in "get every peasant a spear" territory, shit's fucked anyway.

>>54318854
Post got a bit long, but I'd like to add that this all doesn't mean that you can't play a woman fighter character, obviously there were historical woman combatants and are real life woman combatants today. It just means that the whole society where "the women fight and the men stay at home" or "women and men fight 50/50" just doesn't work unless reproduction works different than how it works in real life and with most fantasy humans and humanoids. You can't just say "well their society is different" because men being fighters and women staying at home wasn't an arbitrary decision in the real world, it was due to how reproduction works, and if reproduction works exactly the same, then societal roles are going to follow. Hell, in the Wonder Woman movie, those women weren't having kids and didn't really need to because I guess they lived forever so it worked for them because reproduction wasn't an issue for them.

>>54318862
In which case, please explain how life would have evolved on an Earth where dragons and similar lifeforms were biologically feasible. Not just dragons, but other lifeforms that would have their existences enabled by the changes made that allow for the existence of dragons.

After all, a world where dragons are biologically feasible is much easier to imagine than a world where female humans are as physically and mentally capable as male humans. So this shouldn't be too hard.

>>54318879
>>54318889
>women being weaker didn't affect the relationship between sexes or society
>egalitarin society where one group is outright superior due to being equal in performance but also having value as childbearers thus assuring preferential treatment with no loss

>>54318907
You too? Good to know I have company.

>>54318828
>>54318907
Read the discussion. Anon claims that it's a lot easier to believe woman being equal and nothing changes then a dragon. What i said was, i find it hard to believe that society would look the same if women could perform as well as men. Not once did i show discomfort or disgust over the idea.
>disagree with someone
>slander instead of addressing the argument
Spineless and pathetic.

>>54317318

Not really. Warrior women weren't much a thing in the real world, and there's a lot of unpleasant implications that come from allowing women into combat. (As well as the fact that only exceptional women are as physically capable as men.)

However, in fantasy, none of that really matters. But in a setting where there are a significant number of female warriors, I tend to skew things towards the less realistic - Basically, more anime-ish, to explain why they'd be able to pull off feats like that.

I mean, if you're at that point, you don't really have to worry about realistic armor and so on. Magic handles all the work.

>>54318948
child bearer status isnt a big deal. Not every woman has to reproduce, only some do. Not only that but pregnant women have always still been expected to work be it picking berries or tending fields

File: cordelia 3.png (853KB, 627x990px) Image search: [Google]

853KB, 627x990px

>>54317456
>as only an idiot would wear a corset or stockings into battle.

Badly made or impractical military uniforms annoy me, but I can forgive it in certain cases where things are extremely stylized or it looks cool. Sadly they're very rare.

>>54318943
>please explain how life would have evolved on an Earth where dragons and similar lifeforms were biologically feasible
>how did life evolve with dinosaurs around?
Cataclism, dragons almost driven extinct by gods ets. Kind of a dumb argument really, there was some pretty nasty shit like sabertooth tigers back in the day too, didn't stop us from thriving.
What you don't seem to understand is that i'm not opposed to an idea of equal women. What i'm opposed to is your retarded argument that things would be exactly the same if one sex was outright superior to the other in every way. In a world where women were literal mary sues that had all the feminine charms and viciousness of a woman coupled with physical and mental strength of a man, they'd be the ruling class. No ifs or buts.

>>54318948
Yeah because being childbrearers was worth any sort of preferential treatment in the past.

If women were strong as well, then it didn't change anything - they're still the childbrearers and will still most likely be looked down on by men as being illogical and ruled by emotions and all that bullshit, so treatment would most likely be the same.
The only real difference would be that women who particularly hated it would have the ability to rise and do something about it before the invention of the rifle.

Probably meanin women's suffrage far earlier in history.

Which would probably result in...oh hey, the same sort of situation most fantasy a settings in tabletop have.
Crazy.

>>54318927
No, I'm assuming only a small portion of your adult population is going to be soldiers unless you are in an active large scale war. Simply put, there's no good reason to pull women out of the reproductive pool to serve as soldiers when you can have men serve as soldiers and they can still be a part of the reproductive pool or be easily replaced by other men since one dude can impregnate multiple women at a time. There's just no real logic to it.

>>54318987
>it's a lot easier to believe woman being equal and nothing changes then a dragon.
Considering the hard evidence against women and that many cultures all have various depictions of dragons despite never having interacted at those times I'd say it's a safer bet the dragons could've existed than women ever being equal.

>>54319035
>they'd be the ruling class. No ifs or buts.
Men were still peasants with all their strength irl. Women also were ruling class.

>>54319067
>will still most likely be looked down on by men as being illogical and ruled by emotions and all that bullshit
Doesn't the part about having the same mental toughness as men kind of negate that?

>>54318987
See >>54318943.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that editing biology to the point that dragons are able to exist would have a massive impact on what sort of lifeforms would evolve, what sort of ecosystems would be created and what sort of biomes would exist.

You're discussing how having women be as physically and mentally capable as men would fundamentally change the history of humanity and the structure of society. How by changing this one thing, you change almost everything about humanity. You're being very rigorous in explaining the scale of change that would come from this change.

I'm applying the same amount of rigor to the existence of dragons. What you're ignoring is that by changing biology to allow dragons to exist, you're changing almost everything about biology itself. You're creating a far stranger world, one that has almost nothing in common with our own.

>>54319035
>feminine charms and viciousness of a woman coupled with physical and mental strength of a man

Fucking kek.
And here I was taking your opinions seriously for a second there.

>>54319081
Except that's pretty much already the case in real life and it didn't stop shit.

>>54318886
Yes, in the first sentence, I flat out say that even when men and women are physically equal on average, large scale warrior women aren't going to be a thing due to women lives being worth more than men lives in terms of reproduction.

>>54319084
>be r9k permavirgin dweller ''ALL WOMYNZ ARE EVIL HARPIES''
>be tumlblr beta cuck ''ALL WOMYNZ ARE ANGELS WHO CAN DO NO WRONG''
All extremes are bad anon. I never said that every woman is a conniving banshee, but you'd be retarded to deny that, yes, on average women can be much more cruel and two-faced, to each other and to men.

>>54319013
>Not only that but pregnant women have always still been expected to work be it picking berries or tending fields
Picking berries or tending fields is not nearly as physically demanding or dangerous as literally fighting for your life (and, in the case of your pregnant warrior woman, the life of the child growing inside her). It's not even remotely equivalent, to the point where I don't know why you would even bring it up as a point other than to completely sabotage whatever other point you were trying to make. I seriously recommend you retract and abandon this particularly weak and frankly embarrassing line of argument.

>>54319013
First post in this thread, not trying to sound like /pol/ here.

My wife is a reproductive biologist and child bearing status is a big deal and a deal the western world is going to have to deal with soon because our society does not promote re-population at all.
Most western countries are close to not hitting the sustenance level via domestic births and are leaning hard on immigration to plug the leak.

Also biologically in placental mammals males essentially exist to provide a means of genetic recombination and defend/ feed and female whilst she is pregnant that's why males are physically more capable and die younger we simply are as important to reproduction.

However I see no reason why you can't have female PCs the strength graph as a enough crossover for a female PC to exist at the top end of the spectrum.

>>54319100
It's not like every single man in a society was deployed during warfare, and I doubt they need every single women to be reproducing in order to maintain population

>>54319095
>Except that's pretty much already the case in real life
Except no, it isn't. It's been proven men can better endure high stress situations, panic less, control their emotions better and get their shit together sooner.

>>54317456
>only an idiot would wear a corset or stockings into battle.
>what is Prussia

>>54319083
>how to dragons exist
>magic
Done.
>women are equal because of magic
Like i said, sure, but don't expect me to believe society would be identical then.

>>54319035
You say dragons are okay while brushing off the limitless changes they would make to the entire world that they would exist in, while you dismiss physical and mental equality of the sexes as ridiculous because of the amount of changes that would make to their society.

This seems like evidence of a double-standard that might have its origins in your personal politics.

>>54319138

I would entirely deny that.

Across the scope of my life I've seen far more backstabbing and 'harpy' behaviour from men then I have from women. Especially when getting laid is on the line.
And 90% of my friend circles have been men my entire life.

I mean sure, >anecdotes, but that's all either side is.

>>54319139
Farming is a labor intensive task, and when did I ever argue pregnant women should be soldiers? Male soldiers who are incapacitated due to injury are given leave from the military too. The point here is to say where women are just as strong as men, provided they are not soldiers, their societal task would not change due to pregnancy.

>>54319190
>You say dragons are okay while brushing off the limitless changes they would make to the entire world that they would exist in
If it wasn't obvious, my argument was addressing relationships between sexes, and thus, society. Obviously the world would be much different, but i think taking the most basic, core thing about a species and changing it is a lot harder to imagine then simply putting that species in a different environment.

>>54319150
What's the incentive, though, for using women as soldiers when they're less disposable than men? This is assuming women and men are of equal physical strength (which is the case in fantasy RPGs, as there aren't many where you get some kind of strength penalty for playing a woman).

I mean, I could afford to pay a thousand bucks for a roll of normal toilet paper, but why would I when I could buy the exact same toilet paper for a fraction of the price?

>>54319184
Since the start of the argument, we have not been including the use of magic. The discussion was one of biology.

But since we are now including magic thanks to your latest post, please explain how the existence of dragons through magic would have less impact on the world than the existence of physical and mental equality of the sexes through magic.

You don't get go 'poof, dragons exist,' pretend that they have no impact on the world and act as though that is acceptable while women being on the same physical and mental level as men without impacting society is apparently utterly abhorrent in fiction.

>>54319222
No ones saying you would.
But if someone gave you a roll you wouldn't throw it away would you.

>>54319147
In the West immigrants are relied upon for labor bc they take shitty jobs that natives would rather not do. If every other cashier switched over to manual labor there wouldn't be a problem, but why would you become a farmer or a garbage collector when you can be a cashier?

>>54319203
Fair enough.

>>54319227
read>>54319217

>>54319184
If society radically changes bc of equal women then wouldn't also be radically different if giant flying devastating lizards existed that can only be killed by the greatest of heroes?

>>54319260
>>54319217

>>54319239
>didn't even call me an sjw or tublrite

In this thread, actually taken somewhat aback.
Good going my dude.

>>54319222
It essentially doubles the size of your army for one. Pretty big incentive right there.

>>54319217
You're still brushing off the impact of the existence of such of a species on a world, while putting too much emphasis on the changes that physical equality of the sexes would make.

It has become very evident through this discussion that the topic of the sexes is one you're possibly unhealthily invested in. Especially if you find it harder to imagine a world where humans are biologically and sociologically different from how they are now, than to imagine a world where the laws of physics have been twisted to the point where creatures such as dragons are possible.

>>54317318
Women can be military leaders. Warriors? Not so much.

File: Screen Shot 2017-07-11 at 2.03.54 am.png (51KB, 211x190px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 211x190px

>>54317318
>fantasy [...] realistic?

>>54319274
Why would human society ever develope past its earliest stages when you have massive predators who in most settings are depicted as having the same intelligence as humans. Humans are relatively large animals and with the bonus that theyre weak as shit that makes them preferential prey.

>>54319069
>in an active large scale war
Not only.
Female militia is a way to go not using women id defence is wasting defensive capability.
Man only fighting may be not bad in human-human conflict, where being raped and enslaved may be preferred to being killed. So waiting raid out as non-combatant might work.

In fantasy it may be different.
Where there is murder-orc raid you want ALL people inside the city/town/village to participate in defence because if you fall ALL of you die.
So no matter is female is weaker as long as she can use bow/crossbow or hold pike in place she will be great asset to defence effort.
As smaller contribution>>>> no contribution.

So female militia is great thing when you need all possible manpower to repeal one assault. For prolonged warfare men may be better.
And where warfare shifts more towards ranged, the women will be better suited as warfare require less and less physical strength

>>54318627
>Which is more damaging when it comes to your suspension of disbelief?
What's more damaging to your suspension of disbelief? A world where people with one leg can run as fast as people with two, or a world where giant lizards fly around?

The giant lizards one is more believable given suspendion of disbelief because it has a basis in the collective subconscious and heroics, men fighting fierce beasts, whereas the other one removes a fundamental premise of humanity, that two feet are necessary for walking; or that women are not the same as men.

>>54319234
I wouldn't put more valuable women in soldier roles when I could put less valuable men in soldier roles because there's just no incentive and it makes zero sense.

I think an all-woman army could work if you changed the rules of reproduction or, barring that, make women stronger and better than men in combat (which is what they did in that Wonder Woman movie). But if they're equal in terms of strength, let the women stay at home and pop out babies while the men die fighting over sand.

>>54319238
Like I said not going to try and make this thread more /pol/ then it already is but immigrants being unskilled labourers might be true in the states bordering mexico in the US but it's certainly not true in aus.

Also if we don't start encouraging women somehow to have children before they're 35 and stop using ARTS the west is going to start asgarding itself pretty soon.
That's not a popular political opinion I know but that's what's coming out of the literature.

>>54319282
Well what can i say, you formed your opinions and beliefs from your own personal experiences, i'll always respect that a hundred times more then some retarded ''argument'' formed in an echo chamber. I personally saw (and had friends experience) some very foul shit from women, without getting too much into it stereotypes exist for a reason. We shouldn't automatically put people into groups and judge them based on that, but we also shouldn't deny that yes, there are certain truths about them.

>>54319285
>>54318927
>You're assuming the majority of your young adult population is going to be soldiers. To my understanding the numbers are generally much smaller - Rome's population was in the tens of millions, and their standing armies were in the hundreds of thousands, for example.

>>54318087
Aren't the Matildas one of the best female teams in Soccer?

>>54319330
No one is saying make your entire army women.
But if you got female recruits in this setting where women are as strong naturally as men, why would you turn them away?

Taking the entire female population would be stupid since you have no reproduction, but saying you'd turn away any women who wanted to join as well would be just throwing away more soldiers.

>>54319298
This is a very bad argument. Fantasy has always been far easier to write then radical changes to society. And i honestly can't think of a single story that dealt with women being equal in all the good shit while keeping all of their perks right. I don't need to think how a dragon's anatomy works to appreciate the impact and presence it has in the story. While i do need to ask why is a society identical to the norm when women need to fear far less things, need less help and are able to enforce their will even more effectively.

>>54318925
The ability for a women to physically fight back against a man would most certainly change the course of history.

>>54319319
In most settings dragons are INCREDIBLY rare. Or you can have a species that is a natural enemy/preferred prey of dragons/protector of humans.

>>54319351
What point are you trying to make here? It's a small army compared to population size but it excludes one half of the population there. If women were to become soldiers it then doubles giving a numbers advantage.

>>54319355
>No one is saying make your entire army women.
This actually is sort of what we're discussing. OP is even using a picture of Wonder Woman.

>why would you turn them away?
Because you don't need every single person to be a soldier. You just need a portion of your population that is disposable, and that means men, typically ones who aren't really educated and are poorer.

If you need every single man, woman, and child to be a soldier then yes, you are fucked and you're not going to turn anyone away and you're going to give a newborn a crossbow if you have enough to give to everyone.

>>54319327
I could technically suspend my disbelief for both but since you asked, a world where people on one leg can run as fast as people with two is more believable than the other world you mentioned, for me.

Why?

Because that implies that the biology of humanity has been altered in the setting to the point where the removal of one leg does not hinder the human's capacity for movement. That's a pretty significant alteration to biology as we know it.

Do you know what's an even more significant alteration to biology as we know it? Enabling the existence of giant reptiles the size of planes that possess both functional wings and functional legs and the ability to project fire from their mouths thanks to their anatomy.

When a setting is made, its creator asks themselves "what do I need to change to make this seem feasible?" And fact is, you need to change more to allow giant flying fire-breathing lizards to exist than you need to change in order to allow humans to move as fast one leg as they do on two.

>>54319393
They don't need to double the size. There's no incentive there.

>>54319393
If they needed to double the size they could easily just recruit more men.

>>54319393
Quality is more important than quantity, especially in pre-modern warfare. Armies would never fight to the death, but until one side broke and ran. Having women would lower cohesion.

That is, at least in trained armies. In barbarian bands with small numbers, more weapons is better; but women are too important to the clan to throw away needlessly.

>>54319380
Incredibly rare but still bringers of destruction and devastation. Also making up some obligatory reason as to why dragons have zero effect on the societal evolution of humans defeats the point.

>>54319433
You still don't get it. Let me put it like this: which society is going to be more different:
>one that was influenced by different environment then ours
>one that has one of the most basic, core things changed

>>54319428
>>54319413
Recruiting more men means losing the workers who keep society functioning. Recruiting more women means less pregnant women, which only stifles rapid expansion of population. Also its not like women are kept pregnant throughout all of their lives.

>>54319320
You're just saying what's already been agreed: in a dire situation where everyone has to fight, you're not really going to turn people away as long as you have enough equipment to go around. I mean, in that situation as you described it, you'll hand your arthritic grandma a sword if you have one to spare. Doesn't mean a militia of grandmas with arthritis is practical or logical.

>>54319371
You don't think as much about it because you don't care as much about it. You're far more invested in the subject of the sexes for some reason, which is why you think so much more about it and ask so much more about it.

You're content to ignore the impacts that the existence of dragons would have of the world, while being far more judgmental about the impacts that the existence of the physical and mental equality of the sexes would have on society. This is due to your subjectivity. Once you think about the impact that dragons would have on the entirety of the setting they're in, then you'll thinking as hard about them as you think on the impact that this sexual equality would have. But as it is, you are showing that you are far more invested and interested in one than the other.

>>54319469
I don't think sexual inequality is such a core basic thing. Also different environments mean life or death. An extinct human society is drastically more different than a living one.

>>54317318
combat skill is a learned thing. the only reason you're so convinced that warrior women are impractical is that you were born and raised in a culture that explicitly discouraged equivalent skill sets in women so it seems counter intuitive to your frail grasp of "reality" given a limited and skewed sample size. The actual biological asymmetry between sexes is actually pretty minimal when you factor out cultural taboos that tend to hold women back: not being raised to be competitive, being shamed for being too big or too aggressive (even with differences in estrogen and testosterone levels the predisposition towards aggressive behavior isn't even a diamorphic sex thing so much as it is a hereditary disposition, like what we've bred into fight dogs and out of pet rats.) A girl trying to learn to fight even at the same general speed as a boy of equivalently average physique and skill is going to have to push against the social acceptance of that training where as the boy can embrace it, and that makes for a handicap. If you're trying to hypothesize about a full blown warrior race, or at least one that has no segregation of military by sex, then it goes a long way in closing the perceived gap. People forget that the idea that a men's and women's bellcurve distribution of physical performance over a general population says nothing of how a warrior race would compare, but you're not comparing singular champions, you're looking at a militarized population. If a warrior race's average soldier, man or woman, can reliably kill any of the 50% beneath them in an opposing population, that's the bare minimum level of efficiency needed to be a warrior. The distribution of men and women along that remaining upward 50% of the bellcurve may be something other than a 50/50 split but that doesn't invalidate the functionality of having warrior women in whatever specific circumstance is being presented.

>>54317318
In highly industrial world with traditional gender domestic roles(male works woman sits witch children) using solely female soldiers may be superior.

They don't need that much strength to drive tank, pilot plane or shoot artillery, so difference would be barely noticeable on grand scale.

War is won by 2 things:
Manpower and industrial output.
In highly mechanized warfare, difference between quality of manpower is negligible.
But as men are workers before the war and women are not, mobilizing the man leads to sharp drop to industrial output.
Sure one could train women to be workers(what we did IRL) but you still suffer drop in output in time where they learn how to operate factories.
And results of women working could be catastrophic for post war economy as supply of workers increases by two times while demand for work stays the same(or drops), leading to mass drop in effective wage for entire society (as happened IRL)

Woman function as breeder is unimportant as war will be decided in under 16 years which is minimal time for new recruits to be breed.

>>54319411
You're not getting it. It's not about "how much matter is being altered" but how much the human spirit is being altered that makes it ungenuine.

Why is there tons of literature involving dragons, but almost none involving one-legged humans? Because dragons speak to people's idea of a danger, a challenge. It is a myth that has been told for centuries.

You could mess around with humans, move their nose to the top of their head, give them 3 eyes. That would be less matter altered than having a magical lizard that flies. However, it is a pointless change that only distances the audience, not draws them in, because it stretches the audience's connection to the human element of the setting, to the supposedly-human characters that are in a strange land.

>>54319472
But in a world where women and men are equal on average, women can work and do those jobs just as well as men without putting their lives in nearly as much danger as soldiers on the front line. You're not losing any workers in this case.

>Also its not like women are kept pregnant throughout all of their lives.

No, it's just their prime-time for being pregnant is also their prime-time for being a soldier. So either you have women who fight young and possibly die young without having a kid (or survive but have a child later in life, which raises a lot of risks of defects for the child) or you have them have a kid first and then go off to fight when they're older and less valuable as a fighter.

Plus we're ignoring that if a guy fucks while at war (which is extremely common) the chances of him getting pregnant and having a bun in the oven is zilch whereas if a woman fucks while at war she can get pregnant and then whoops you've just wasted all that training because now she's a non-combatant for a while at best. At worst she's now a liability because you've got a pregnant woman on the battlefield and you got to deal with that bullshit.

>>54319494
>I don't think sexual inequality is such a core basic thing
All of human history would beg to differ.

>>54319217
Ok, then let's use some other examples. Magic exists. Gods not only exist, but anyone sufficiently pious can perform miracles. People can become inhumanly strong and durable through sufficient training and experience. The unhappy dead can reanimate and devour the living. Morality is an objective force that can be measured.

Any of these things would completely reshape human society. But we give them all a pass, because that's not the story we're telling.

>>54319563
Earliest human societies are thought to be egalitarian. Also you're ignoring the second point entirely.

>>54319535
If we're taking this argument into the realm of the 'human spirit,' can't we take the critical positive response and the huge box office success of a third of a billion as of two days ago as an indicator of something?

Namely, that the majority of its audience is able to suspend their disbelief and accept the presence of warrior women, due to their belief than the human spirit hasn't be fundamentally altered by it.

It could even be that one's perception of the human spirit is a subjective thing?

>>54319488
Can you stop focusing on me and address the argument? What could my motives (as you've envisioned them) possibly bring to the table other then you subtly attacking me rather then screaming ''you just mad at girlz xd''?

Yes, it's easier for me to envision
>humanity in a different, more hostile environment
As i've seen dozens, if not hundreds of stories like that. At some point it becomes pretty easy to guess what it would be like.
Meanwhile, i've never seen a story like you're describing, with women being equal in physical and mental strength yet still feminine. Weakness is a part of the feminine appeal, if the woman is equal then the male protector instinct isn't as strong. Women would be more confident. Since they can enforce their will more easily the need for seduction/scheming wouldn't be as high. You really can't see how much more different a society like this would be, can you? A lot of stereotypes that we take for granted simply wouldn't exist.

>>54319371
> I don't need to think how a dragon's anatomy works to appreciate the impact and presence it has in the story
Do you think that biology "enabling" dragons wouldn't have a huge impact on how the whole biosphere developed?

>>54319494
>An extinct human society is drastically more different than a living one.
This isn't moving the goalpoasts. I don't even know what this is. Of course we're assuming humans managed to adapt to their environment ffs.

>>54319393
>it then doubles giving a numbers advantage
>what is logistics

>>54319590
You mean primitive tribes of hunter-gatherers where the men would kill the men of other tribes and rape the women? THAT is your idea of egalitarian?

Also, if you're implying that killing women is somehow conductive to survival, I'll let you in on a secret: women weren't kept out of the military just because men are mean and oppressive and don't let the girls in all the cool clubs. No, women were barred from combat because one woman can produce a dozen or two kids if kept busy, and half of these will grow up to be soldiers. Therefore, it's a better idea for survival not to let them get killed.

File: 1498552261282.jpg (277KB, 975x847px) Image search: [Google]

277KB, 975x847px

As realistic as the magic, the dragons, the zombies, and OP not being a faggot are in fantasy.

Although female soldiers exist in the reality situation where OP is a fag.

>>54319573
>Any of these things would completely reshape human society.
Not to the level that changing it's most absolute basic, core characteristic would. Outside factors will ALWAYS bring less change then internal ones.

>>54319608
You're asking me to put mountains of thought and mental effort into what you're asking me to consider, while you're dismissing what I asked you to consider in literally seven words.

Since you asked me to imagine what that sort of world would be like, I'll put as much effort into it as you did for mine.

>Women still have maternal roles to consider

Sorry, that's as much as effort as I can put into it. And I think that describes not just hundreds, but thousands of stories that I've read.

>"Women can't do the thing!"
>What about these tens of thousands of women who have done the thing?
>doesn't count DoEsn'T CouNt DOESN'T COUNTTTTT!!!!111!!!!!!

>>54319595
>Namely, that the majority of its audience is able to suspend their disbelief and accept the presence of warrior women, due to their belief than the human spirit hasn't be fundamentally altered by it.
>society of superhuman warrior women that gleefully slaughter men after raping them and then kill all the male children is completely normal
Of course, i'm talking about the comic amazons, i'm sure the movie totally made it different.

>>54319635
Hunter-gathers rarely engaged in warfare and rape was probably not common either looking at how other primates act. Also a woman doesn't have to be kept pregnant all throughout her prime years in order to keep up population.

>>54319671
I think humans being able to selectively defy the laws of physics is closer to our absolute basic core than sexual egalitarianism.

>>54319671
I think you're a little bit too invested in the topic of the sexes if you believe that sexual equality would change the world in a far more significant way than the existence of magic and gods.

>>54319595
You're citing hollywood mass media grrrrl power garbage that will be forgotten about this time next year. Do you honestly think Wonder Woman is a classic that will stand the test of time comparable to, say, The Odyssey?

Even in myths with a female warrior, she was never just a man with boobs, but was distinct from her male counterpart, emotionally and physically, and in the role they played in the story.

Having women become men with boobs is just a result of the left-wing feminist craze that is already dying out

>>54319629
Being able to train, arm, house, feed, and pay your soldiers is overrated when you could DOUBLE THE NUMBERS! It's like twice as many soldiers, dude.

>>54319613
Like i said several times, magic.
>>54319678
Since you have hundreds of stories where dragons are real, i really don't have to imagine anything. You, on the other hand, can't give me ONE example that deals with your subject.
>>Women still have maternal roles to consider
Ok
>women keep men as a slave class and breed with only the finest specimens, taking the girls to raise them while giving the boys to the slaves
>women are a powerful ruling class while men live like barbarians in the west, periodically women go out and catch the finest specimens for breeding, girls are kept, boys thrown back
>women and men are at war, breeding is achieved via prisoners of war
All of those contain your ''argument'' yet are radically different from the norm.

>>54319704
>Hunter-gathers rarely engaged in warfare and rape was probably not common either looking at how other primates act.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War

>Also a woman doesn't have to be kept pregnant all throughout her prime years in order to keep up population.
Would you rather have one weak soldier, or a mother to look after your children, who will grow up to be 5 strong soldiers and 5 mothers?

>>54319625
Their adaptation to it would drastically effect the way in which society grows.

>>54319474
>in a dire situation
In fantasy dire situation may be more common.
So if you have by quality:
1. Able men
2. Able women
3. Elderly
4. Kids
5. Too sick
You want to arm and train everybody in above order as town guard/militia. With 3rd and 4th category acting more as civil defense getting water to put out the fire, acting as messengers or caring ammunition.
By not training and arming women you actively lessen your chances of survival of next dark elf raid.

So you should have female militia. And when king wants to levy X best soldiers from your town it is not unprobable that one(or few) of that X soldiers is female and probably also a PC that will latter kill dragnos and shieet.

>>54317318
Yes, it's entirely realistic. Real women are stronger and more aggressive than men. They fearlessly confront their enemies and routinely defeat multiple opponents in combat.

>>54319777
You don't need a single mother to look after all of her children. Also that's one species of chimp. Bonobo's who are just as distant from us on an evolutionary scale engage in free love and don't conduct warfare.

>>54317340
>Nothing in fantasy games is entirely realistic

It's kind of sad someone had to actually type that.

WHERE IS THE CHEESECAKE?

>>54319792
I feel perfectly safe with Arthritic Grandma Militia guarding this city. It just doesn't make sense not to train and arm them. They're masters at wheelchair jousting.

>>54319736
>>54319741
Humans are our window into these worlds. The rule of thumb is leaving the basic human characteristics and relationships intacts. It's incredibly easy to suspend your disbelief for these things because you experience them through people. It's harder to imagine the people themselves being so fundamentally different.

>>54319771
>Like i said several times, magic
I was under the impression that the whole argument was excluding "a wizard did it".
If that's in, then we can handily use it to explain how women could be as strong as men without society being different.

Nearly every fantasy trope is unrealistic. Halflings are fucking tiny, but they can still murder people and monsters many times their size. At high levels, most characters are practically gods.

>>54318083
MAH MOTHERFUCKIN NIGGA!

There needs to be a movie about Ching Shih.

>>54319815
>You don't need a single mother to look after all of her children.
Women have boobs. That is nature's authoritative way of saying that they are needed to look after children.

>Also that's one species of chimp. Bonobo's who are just as distant from us on an evolutionary scale engage in free love and don't conduct warfare.
Bonobos also engage in incest and the females literally prostitute themselves to males in exchange for food.

>>54319608
He has to focus on you. You haven't been arguing in good faith since your first post, so he can't address your argument. You have clear and blatant double-standards in this discussion, where your arguments can only support you and cannot, for some reason, be used against you even when the circumstances are effectively the same. You clearly have some personal hangups that need to be addressed before you're capable of arguing productively.

>>54319635
You should probably do some research as to what hunter-gatherer societies were (and are! they still exist) like. You are entirely off-base here as to the reality of the situation.

>>54319835
No, that's the thing i'm arguing. If we completely disregard hormones and biology and how they affect personality and relationships and are just left with stronger, tougher women, society would be radically different.

>>54319871
>Bonobos also engage in incest and the females literally prostitute themselves to males in exchange for food.

I mean, bonobos are a bad example, because the males literally prostitute themselves in exchange for food too. Bonobo "culture" is entirely sex based. I think the only sex that doesn't usually happen is parent with child.

>>54319889
Cro-magnons literally murdered and raped Neanderthals to extinction.

>>54319849
>There needs to be a movie about Ching Shih.
There're, quite lot. Not western though.

>>54319792
If you have the resources you can just arm everyone, sure, but in reality, you're only going to be able to afford to have a fraction of the able men serve in your town guard and militia, and you're going to put the investment mostly into them because, as you stated, they're highest on the quality list.

That's not to say that there won't be women guards or soldiers, just that women guards and soldiers are going to be the exception to the rule and a minority.

>>54317318
Nothing is entirely realistic.

>>54319871
You don't need the mother of the children watching over her own children. What is a wetnurse?
Also who cares if bonobos engage in incest and prostitution? The chimp war you mentioned wasn't over women, and wasn't about hunter-gatherer human societies who are known to have rarely engaged in warfare. Also, chimps are renowned as a much more violent ape species.

>>54319871
>>You don't need a single mother to look after all of her children.
>Women have boobs. That is nature's authoritative way of saying that they are needed to look after children.
I think you're misreading the argument. Communal child-rearing happens with both humans and animals. The community as a whole looks after children; the mother of a child could reasonably go do something else and still have the children cared for.

>>54319891
>With stronger, tougher women, society would be radically different.
No no, it'd be exactly the same. How? Magic.

>>54317318
It's not even close to realistic.

>>54319891
What exactly do you imagine would change?

>>54318467
Holy shit dude, you're gonna get into trouble with the theater workers union if you keep projecting that hard.

>>54319874
Ridiculous. You people come at me with your ''muh unrealistic dragons'' and shit, it's the exact same argument allowed to explain massive plotholes and inconsistencies in stories ''it's all fiction''. It's bullshit is what it is. And then you attack me personally. Very nice.

Since it has to be literally spelled out for you:
Throwing humans into a fantastic environment doesn't fundamentally change how they, their relationships and thus the basis of any society they create would work.
Changing the very basis of their relationship does.
If you want to write a story where women are somehow equal to men while maintaining their femininity, appeal and hormonal balance be my guest, but have the integrity to actually consider how that would impact everything about that society.
>part of the feminine appeal is weakness, since women are equal the male protective instinct isn't as strong, less easy for women to use that to manipulate/flirt with men
>since women are more able to defend themselves, they're more confident, also men are more respectful of them on average since it's perfectly normal for a woman to stomp some asshole into the ground
>since it's easier for them to defend themselves and enforce their will, seduction and scheming aren't that important anymore
These are just off the top of my head, bare minimum changes, and you tell me society would be the same? Get the fuck out.

>>54319938
>using a deus ex machina to cancel out that very same deus ex machina

>>54319953
>>54319984

>>54319925
The problem with that is that she can't engage in combat if she's pregnant or will lose the child. That could be very dangerous to her own health too. That's one reason not to put women in danger. Also, one woman can't produce enough milk to feed the entire tribe.

Furthermore, if a society is more advanced and has concepts like property, someone is needed to manage the house and farm and other property.

If everything is threatened, sure, arm everyone you can, but a woman who is fighting is either a desperate last resort, barren or some sort of exception.

In fantasy you do have exceptional people, women heroes, but even then, they shouldn't just blend with the guys and be one of them. Even Atalanta who defeated men in wrestling matches wasn't allowed on the Argo because it would destroy cohesion.

>>54319907
That is one theory of many and far from widely accepted. Interbreeding, disease, natural disaster, and climate change are some other theories.

File: b9a73de18ff855feaf63ca35047d50ab.jpg (562KB, 1549x1200px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1549x1200px

>>54319911
>you're only going to be able to afford to have a fraction of the able men serve in your town guard and militia
Depends on how choosy are you with weapons.
Scythe(with short trip to blacksmith), hand axe, flail and pitchfork, things that most farmers keep at home allows you to arm 4 people.
Pitchfork can be used as kind of spear, hand axe is self explanatory, fail was terrifying weapon in hand of Hussite warriors, and scythe became meme weapon of polish freedom fighters.

Also regular spears are dirt cheap, and bloody effective in formation.

>>54319832
They should be trained when they were young and any grandma that can raise a pot full of soup while standing on top of the wall is more dangerous any that big beefed warrior under that wall. Gravity is a bitch.

Cause fantasy pic attached (notice wheelchair at the left senpai)

>>54319954
Cool your jets, Casanova. There are no damsels in this thread for you, but even if there were, your weak jab at that anon wouldn't exactly leave the ladies dripping.

>>54319792
Able men = Males who have gone through or are in the process of going through puberty, right? Because 15 year old boys absolutely wreck the shit out of grown, highly trained women any day of the week.

>>54319984
>>54320020
Early human societies were polygamous so we already changed the most basic of relationships.

>>54319984
What you are refusing to acknowledge is that society would be changed in equal or greater amounts by humanity co-evolving with creatures like Dragons and Gods.

That is the point you keep missing. That is the hangup you need to get over.

Your argument applies equally to dragons as it does to sexual equality.

Dragons change society, too. Gods being measurably real changes society, too. Magic changes society, too. It applies to all fantastic aspects of a setting to some degree or another, but you're singling out sexual equality and dismissing the rest as irrelevant.

It's a double-standard, and the fact that you won't argue the point other than saying "it doesn't count" is the reason people can't address your argument; you are not arguing in good faith. You refuse to engage with everyone disagreeing with you, and if you aren't engaging their argument and simply shutting it down without logic or reason, then there's no argument to be had.

You simply cannot argue that sexual equality will change humanity so as to be unrecognizable but magic and gods and dragons won't just because you say so. It doesn't hold up logically at all.

Nobody is saying that sexual equality wouldn't change society. Nobody at all. What people are saying is to stop with the damned double-standard where you ignore everything else in a fantasy setting that would also change society in order to focus solely and exclusively on sexual equality.

>>54320002
If you're fine with "dragons exist because of magic", without any additional explanation, I really don't see how you're not fine with the exact same thing applied to different women and their impact on human society.
For the record, I think that "wizard did it" is a terrible thing to have in fantasy.

>>54320111
And then the peasant inclusive militia overthrows you and installs a competent ruler who doesn't force them to fight for no pay with improvised weapons and instead pays actual soldiers (most of whom are men) with real weapons to defend the city.

>>54319907
>Cro-magnons literally murdered and raped Neanderthals to extinction
By the studies neanderthals DNA present in modern human is male DNA, there is no female neanderthals DNA present.

So if that happened they fucked themselves out of existence. Because all neanderthals wanted a qt human waifu and did not want to breed with ugly female neanderthals.
We are cuck species of qt elves that have up to 20% DNA from neanderthals.
Well sub-saharans do not have their DNA and look how well it worked for them so far.

>>54319746
Yes, of course. It's just something that's happened this year, anon. The majority of society certainly does believe that sexual equality goes against the human spirit. There is no evidence to ever say otherwise.

It is in the human spirit that man protect the weaker sex from the burden of responsibilities such as voting, which is why women's suffrage never came to pass. Certainly, anyone in favor of sexual equality is just a short-live Jewish fat cat trying to push their agenda on us in the name of cultural marxism.

>>54320194
>standing army
>in semi medieval setting
Anon, no country till modern times never had enough cash to field standing army big enough to act as police.
Using militia as defense was common, this is why in many euro towns you have places lake "Bakers Tower", which was tower build by bakers guild and in event of siege was to be defended by said guild.
Most town did not also had any professional "police" beside executioner and it was up to citizens to form town watch.

Also one of best use of professional soldiers is as officers for conscripted troops.
Which is main war doctrine from time of revolutionary France till this day

>>54320159
What you are refusing to accept, is that you have countless stories with all manners of fantastical settings and beings and influences, and in almost all of them the relationship between men and women on average follows the exact same pattern as it does here. You really cannot grasp this, can you? The argument was that it's easier to accept that the sexes are equal then a dragon existing. Why then, are there so many stories dealing with dragons, and magic, and gods, and many of them dealing with those things very well to boot, and not a single story that seriously deals with men and women being equal?
Because the human condition has ALWAYS been far harder to write then a bunch of fantastical nonsense. You're standing on your high horse, arguing a completely wrong point, without even refusing to examine yourself.
The crux of my argument isn't the fucking sexes; it's that any significant internal change done to how humanity works is infinitely harder to write and imagine then any manner of strange setting. Even in settings where human biology and abilities are different, the gender roles are almost always kept the same. Imagine if people could asexually reproduce in addition to normal, by creating small clones of themselves like amoeba. How fucking bizzare would THAT world be? Infinitely more interesting then any manner of fantasy you could think off, that's for sure. And that's my argument. Internal changes>>>>>>>>>>external ones.

The very reason i chose ''magic'' as an explanation for both is because while dragon biology has huge implications for the setting, changing the entire natural order to have women be physically equal is arguably just as bad.

>>54320298
Were there Pregnant Wives That Just Want To Raise Their Kids And Don't Want To Be A Militia Towers? Were there Please Just Leave My Grandma Alone Why Are You Making Her Take That Longsword She Can't Even Hold It Upright Fuck It's Heavier Than She Is Towers?

>>54317489
Indeed, history is told about exceptions, not the average (unless you're going for some SoL bullshit) and exceptional women also exist.
So the question isn't "isn't this realistic?" but "was this the norm?"

>>54320327
Not that anon, but in all those fantastical stories no deep thinking goes into how exactly humans would evolve and survive in those settings. Its modern human morals coupled with modern human societal values with maybe a dash of how in the author's uneducated opinion the past worked. No one writes stories that examine how equal sexes changes things because no one writes stories that have that amount of thought put into them.

>>54320236
Woman's sufferage existed for what? 50 years? Yet you're treating it as some sort of inalienable fact of humanity.

>>54320388
>in all those fantastical stories
Most, anon. You have actual good writers out there.

>>54320327
You are being completely absurd. There are many settings where women are equal to men. Your argument that "dragon stories exist, so it's less of a stretch!" is completely without any rational basis, since egalitarian stories exist as well.

And you keep talking about "the human condition" like any part of it is universal. We have cultures with polygamy, cultures with monogamy. We have had matriarchal cultures and egalitarian cultures. We have had hunter-gatherers, dictatorships, democracies, cities, communes. We have cultures with multiple genders that predate the "SJW" phenomenon. We've had cultures that leave unwanted children to die in the wilderness and cultures that find any act of harm against a child to be the highest crime.

There is no one single "human condition," and that is one reason of many why your double-standard is absolutely absurd. Humanity isn't 21st Century Western Culture.

>>54320396
Coincidentally, and completely unrelated, when exactly did society start going downhill?

>>54320327
You wouldn't need to change the entire natural order to make physical and mental equality of the sexes in humanity possible, you'd just need to change humanity and it wouldn't have any larger impact of the rest of the biological world than humanity already has. You'd need to change much more in order to make something such as a dragon biologically feasible.

Regarding the rest of your argument, you're ignoring that any significant change in a setting that is outside of humanity would cause a significant internal change without humanity as well. For example, how does the entirety of humanity react to gods being tangible, existing beings that they can communicate with? Wouldn't that lead to massive internal change? There's thousands of examples I could give where something outside of humanity would change the fundamentals of human society within the setting they both exist within.

Honestly, what I'm getting from you is the vibes of someone that came to /tg/ from another board or website in order to discuss this nonsense. You seem far more invested in identity politics than you are in fantasy and world-building. I'm saying this because your argument is circular and I'm sick of constantly discussing the same points with you because you refuse to get off your high horse.

>>54320436
The advent of agriculture obviously

>>54320434
>There are many settings where women are equal to me
No, there are many settings where exceptional women are equal to exceptional men, and that's what all of you have been missing. In every single one of those setting, the vast majority of humanity is identical to ours.

>>54320460
in the kingkiller chronicles there's a society where women are considered better warriors. otherwise they seem to be treated more or less the same as anyone else IIRC.

to be honest it's not very common to see women treated the way they were in pre-modern times, with virtually no rights.

>>54320327
And in almost all of them those fantastic settings and beings and influences have damn near zero impact on how society developed. It's usually an existing or historical human society with some superficial changes, and even when it isn't societal roles and norms are almost always still recognizable. It's almost like people who create fantasy settings don't actually take into account how human society would be impacted by developing in a fantasy world.

>>54318627
/thread
You either do fantasy or an historical reenactment.

>>54320460
Since we're talking fiction, and this is a traditional games board, let us consider the fact that nearly every single tabletop RPG in print right now has physical and mental equality of the sexes. No stat differences between them whatsoever.

There, proven wrong.

And before you claim "but they don't consider the changes to society!" you must consider that they give it the same treatment they give dragons; roughly none whatsoever.

>>54320439
>You wouldn't need to change the entire natural order to make physical and mental equality of the sexes in humanity possible, you'd just need to change humanity
Sure, humanity is the only species that evolved completely differently from every other remotely similar species. Because.
>For example, how does the entirety of humanity react to gods being tangible, existing beings that they can communicate with?
The same way they acted here while they thought they were real, maybe a bit more extreme? The vast majority of society remains exactly the same?
>personal attacks again
I get the feeling you're someone VERY insecure about being called the buzzword of the day, so you try extra hard to convince yourself you're not that. Ease up, we're all friends here.
>your argument is circular
Hilarious you should say this. I obviously can't get my point across, because you think that a civilization's dogma, values or priorities being different is equal to the roots of all of it's people's relationships being different.

>>54320327
>Internal changes>>>>>>>>>>external ones.
You are some fresh kind of loony toon.

Environment determines "internal." We evolve to fit our environment. That's how these things work. Our "internal" is the way it is because of our "external." Not the other way around.

>>54320523
Yes. Exceptional people are always equal.

>>54320535
Yeah, just like dragons exist just because of magic, just like how you brush off the impact that undeniable proof of gods would have.

You've earned any personal attacks you've gotten because you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any argument outside of your own and your own misbegotten belief that the human spirit is apparently defined by the physical and mental superiority of man over woman.

You're fixated.

>>54320565
>You are some fresh kind of loony toon
Right back at you.
Procreation is the most basic thing about a species. That determines gender roles and thus gender characteristics.

>>54320569
Except these same rules apply to NPCs or nameless mooks.

There is no demographic of people in the vast majority of RPGs that differentiates the stats of men and women. It's not just the "exceptional" PCs (nevermind that not all games have PCs as exceptional). The only game I'm aware of that does is FATAL, and it's not exactly a bastion of good or realistic game design.

>>54320569
What is the stat difference between a generic human female commoner and a generic human male commoner in any edition of D&D?

If there is none, what makes a generic human commoner exceptional?

>>54320641
I cannot believe how incredibly stupid you are. I mean rock-hard stupid. Dehydrated-rock-hard stupid. Stupid so stupid that it goes way beyond the stupid we know into a whole different dimension of stupid. You are trans-stupid stupid. Meta-stupid. Stupid collapsed on itself so far that even the neutrons have collapsed. Stupid gotten so dense that no intellect can escape. Singularity stupid. Blazing hot mid-day sun on Mercury stupid. You emit more stupid in one second than our entire galaxy emits in a year. Quasar stupid. Your writing has to be a troll. Nothing in our universe can really be this stupid. Perhaps this is some primordial fragment from the original big bang of stupid. Some pure essence of a stupid so uncontaminated by anything else as to be beyond the laws of physics that we know. I'm sorry. I can't go on. This is an epiphany of stupid for me. After this, you may not hear from me again for a while. I don't have enough strength left to deride your ignorant questions and half baked comments about unimportant trivia, or any of the rest of this drivel. Duh.

The only thing worse than your logic is your manners. Maybe later in life, after you have learned to read, write, spell, and count, you will have more success. True, these are rudimentary skills that many of us "normal" people take for granted that everyone has an easy time of mastering. But we sometimes forget that there are "challenged" persons in this world who find these things more difficult. If I had known, that this was your case then I would have never read your post. It just wouldn't have been "right". Sort of like parking in a handicap space. I wish you the best of luck in the emotional, and social struggles that seem to be placing such a demand on you.

>>54320617
>You've earned any personal attacks you've gotten
Not really, no. You fail to grasp my argument, and thus label it wrong, and then resort to attacks because that's what your kind does.
>human spirit
Not the anon who mentioned that.
>physical and mental superiority of man over woman
>male's job is to provide, care for, and give his life if necessary for the female, thus ensuring the continuation of the species
>for this reason nature has gifted him with increased physical and mental prowess, especially related to high risk situations
>this has completely defined the relationship between genders, and thus society itself
But in your scenario, where women are perfectly capable of everything a man is for literally no reason other then to make you feel better, and with no consequences to their looks or biology, why the fuck should the relationships, and thus society, be in any way similar.
>you absolutely refuse to acknowledge any argument outside of your own
Ok
Dragons exist
>biology and laws of physics are so different humanity doesn't exist
ok
>biology and laws of physics are different, humanity exists in a different, wacky form, since most dragons are depicted as following the courting rituals of most other species, the gender roles are still largely the same
ok
>humanity exists, stuck in cavemen times because of dragons, gender roles the same
ok
>humanity exists, in constant war with dragons, tech and warfare radically different, gender roles the same
ok
>dragons are scarce, humanity advances normally, tech and warfare slightly different to compensate for dragons
ok
>dragons exist, women equal to men for no fucking reason, society works like one of the above with no explanation
Absolutely retarded.

>>54317489
>Dat sources
>That amount of information

As a historian, I would love to please the genitals' of the anon who posted this with my mouth.

>>54320713
My ''manners'' were unfortunately wasted on you.
I sincerely, wholeheartedly give you this honest advice, kill yourself.

>>54320535
>The same way they acted here while they thought they were real, maybe a bit more extreme?
Are you insane? For one thing, there's the fact that Gods would actively control society. Even if they can't act directly, granting miracles means the faithful are far more powerful than the secular. Leaders who failed to act according to their interests would be easily usurped by challengers who did, leading to truly theocratic societies.

Then you get into the miracles themselves. Imagine how society would develop if people could reliably keep women and infants from dying in childbirth, as well as cure those suffering from diseases. Or how we'd develop if people could ensure all harvests were good by placating the weather God with offerings, and if they could create food to deal with famines. All of humanity's early struggles could be eliminated.

I think the anon accusing you of having a fixation is right.

>>54320797
Please stop posting like this.

>>54320783
>for literally no reason
The reason is magic anon, same as your dragons.

>>54320453
>Agriculture fag
It was when we started cooking meat on fire, it actually changed our biology, that bullshit

>>54320804
I'm honestly losing patience here, especially since my argument is easy to paint as ''lol, insecure'' by mongoloids, and because this is a poor medium for any serious kind of argument.

The starting argument was that it's easier to suspend disbelief about women being equal then about dragons. I pointed out that any serious examination of those two things begs to differ, and it snowballed from there.
In the society you described, the most basic unit, the common family, would be IDENTICAL to one from almost any other setting, with a few tweeks here and there. This is my last attempt at getting this through, In almost any setting, the common family would be identical. Not in the one where they would be equal.

>>54320846
You mean the dragons i addressed as radically changing the world in several of those examples?

>>54320884
> the most basic unit, the common family
Y-you do know that the basic family (male-female-children) is a pretty recent thing... r-right?

>>54320783
The society works the same because the roles for procreation are still the same. Additionally, the "no fucking reason" is the same reason as the one you gave for dragons existing.

>>54320936
>harems existing with equal women
>having a harem that can literally tear you limb from limb if you piss them off

>>54320973
Well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dahomey_Amazons

>>54320936
But anon everyone knows things have always been exactly the way they are now forever right? There's no way things could be any different in any way

>>54320964
>the roles for procreation are still the same
Courting and attraction would be much different, though. Not to mention male-on-female rape being drastically reduced while female-on-male increases. Chivalry wouldn't be as prevailent, while women would be overall respected more. And i addressed dragons changing the world.

>>54320973
As if multiple women aren't able to overpower a single man in the first place. Are you delusional?

>>54320884
No, no it would not. Family unit would ultimately depend on the Gods, like everything else in this theocratic world. Some Gods want man and woman families, others might reward the faithful with multiple spouses and punish the unfaithful with none. Still others might want a society without families, where people just all took care of children communally. Or surrendered them to the church to be raised.

Even if the Gods are neutral on the subject, in this world, there's far less need to have a family. Miracles ensure a food surplus, protection from criminals and predators, and so on. So an R selection strategy would probably be much better than our K selection one. Assuming Divine neutrality, you'd probably have a much weaker blood family, replaced instead by one centered around your brothers and sisters in faith.

>>54321009
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdhYVFJtiN0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_27d8uOrLXo
Also, there's a huge difference between overwhelming someone through sheer numbers and literally grabbing someone, helpless as a child, and tearing him to shreds.

>>54317318
Achilles fought an amazonian queen in the Illiad, and that's good enough for me.

>>54320783
>Due to the existence of dragons, humanity exists in a different, wacky form. Also, women and men are of equal physical and mental capability.
In this instance, dragons have a bigger impact on humanity than equal physical and mental capability.
>Due to the existence of dragons, humanity is stuck in caveman times. Also, women and men are of equal physical and mental capability.
In this instance, dragons have a bigger impact on humanity than equal physical and mental capability.
>Due to the existence of dragons, humanity constantly wars against them with vastly different tech and warfare. Also, women and men are of equal physical and mental capability.
In this instance, dragons have a bigger impact on humanity than equal physical and mental capability.
>Due to the scarce existence of dragons, humanity advances with minor differences in order to compensate for dragons. Also, women and men are of equal physical and mental capability.
In this instance, there is a slight possibility that dragons have less of an impact. This is the only situation you have listed where there's a chance of this however.

>>54321114
So your definition of ''bigger impact'' is ''society is outward different to adapt but you could still relate to the common people'' as opposed to ''societal roles are completely different''.

>>54321064
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdhYVFJtiN0
>That image
>Incessant referral to a man daring to assist women as "white knight"
Gee, this sure seems unbiased.

>>54321156
I agree with you, i remembered seeing that video somewhere else and this is the first one i found. Still, just mute him and it still gets the point across.

>>54321146
My definition of bigger impact is how much of an impact either one has on society.

Let's go with the "dragons make everyone into cavemen" example. How would sexual equality have a bigger impact on society than society never being able to progress to the presence of intelligent super-predators?

>>54321187
Fuck man, you're right, somewhere along the way i started using the wrong term. I guess the correct thing to say would be ''immersion''? Cavemen did exist, and i can more easily imagine a society like that then the one we've been discussing.

Why is discussing gender politically correct enough to have threads about it outside of /pol/ but race isn't?

Some ten years ago I went to a big Strongman event and some top strongwoman was there as a sideshow, attempting to set a new record (I think it was a national rather than a world record). It was some Farmer's Walk sort of event, basically carrying a weight over a distance.

Anyway they let a few men from the audience have a go at that female record too. The first dude managed to lift it but couldn't keep his balance and only did a few steps. The second dude, a balding man in his fifties with a beer gut... lifted it and managed to beat the female record. They didn't let any other volunteers try. Then the female athlete failed to beat the record herself.

I only later learned that grip strength is actually one of the areas with the highest sexual dimorphism in humans and world class female athletes are pretty much on the same level as average untrained males in that regard.

>>54321367
-4str threads have been grandfathered in.

>>54320803
You swine. You vulgar little maggot. You worthless bag of filth. As we say in Texas, I'll bet you couldn't pour piss out of a boot with instructions on the heel. You are a canker. A sore that won't go away. I would rather kiss a lawyer than be seen with you.

You're a putrescent mass, a walking vomit. You are a spineless little worm deserving nothing but the profoundest contempt. You are a jerk, a cad, a weasel. Your life is a monument to stupidity. You are a stench, a revulsion, a big suck on a sour lemon.

You are a bleating foal, a curdled staggering mutant dwarf smeared richly with the effluvia and offal accompanying your alleged birth into this world. An insensate, blinking calf, meaningful to nobody, abandoned by the puke-drooling, giggling beasts who sired you and then killed themselfs in recognition of what they had done.

I will never get over the embarrassment of belonging to the same species as you. You are a monster, an ogre, a malformity. I barf at the very thought of you. You have all the appeal of a paper cut. Lepers avoid you. You are vile, worthless, less than nothing. You are a weed, a fungus, the dregs of this earth. And did I mention you smell?

>>54321239
Except it's one and the same. Why is it easier for you to imagine a society that is further than our own (since you have admitted that it is further from our own) than it is to imagine a society where men and women are physically and mentally equal, which you have admitted is not further from our own than the previous example?

Far more liberties are taken with dragons turning everyone into cavemen than there are with men and women being equal.

File: Zodiac.jpg (41KB, 593x618px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 593x618px

>>54321611
Ebin post, well meme'd.

>>54321643
You are a waste of flesh. You have no rhythm. You are ridiculous and obnoxious. You are the moral equivalent of a leech. You are a living emptiness, a meaningless void. You are sour and senile. You are a disease, you puerile one-handed slack-jawed drooling meatslapper.

On a good day you're a half-wit. You remind me of drool. You are deficient in all that lends character. You have the personality of wallpaper. You are dank and filthy. You are asinine and benighted. You are the source of all unpleasantness. You spread misery and sorrow wherever you go.

You smarmy lagerlout git. You bloody woofter sod. Bugger off, pillock. You grotty wanking oik artless base-court apple-john. You clouted boggish foot-licking twit. You dankish clack-dish plonker. You gormless crook-pated tosser. You churlish boil-brained clotpole ponce. You cockered bum-bailey poofter. You craven dewberry pisshead cockup pratting naff. You gob-kissing gleeking flap-mouthed coxcomb. You dread-bolted fobbing beef-witted clapper-clawed flirt-gill.

You are a fiend and a coward, and you have bad breath. You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just for knowing you exist. I despise everything about you, and I wish you would go away.

>>54317318
This is /tg/, not /pol/.

We don't care about realism, go back to your homeboard

>>54317318
>1 post by this ID
>+300 replies
You should be ashamed, /tg/

>>54321966
We're at 299 right now, and it's been a relatively good thread for the starting shitpost.

>>54322165
I read the thread before I posted. This is a disaster, and it needs to go away

>>54321627

Because women are inferior and undeserving of any representation except as baby factories for God. Certainly thinking of them as warriors or in any role that might put them as in any way on equal ground to their betters is well beyond the line of sense or good taste.

There, are you happy? It's not worth pretending any longer this late in the thread.

>>54321627
Because i've seen hundreds of different settings where humanity is radically affected by this or that, so it's incredibly easy for me to suspend my disbelief. Even in the ones where there are plenty of powerful women, it's always treated like something remarkable, not the norm. So i can imagine a setting with an overwhelming number of powerful women, since i've seen plenty of those. But i've never seen a setting where women are, by default, equal to men.
>>54322218
>this projecting
Wew lad

>>54322218
>Because women are inferior and undeserving of any representation except as baby factories for God
This. It was literally plastered in the bible.

>>54322395
It's assumed in most fantasy settings for RPGs though. Like, the core settings of D&D don't refer to women as lesser than men at any point, the generic women aren't statistically worse than men either. Most settings tend to assume automatic gender equality, socially, physically and mentally.

Everyone makes the "muh babies" argument but conveniently forgets that your society only gets to do that if it survives. If you lose and your society gets absorbed or exterminated that shit stops mattering real fucking fast. In a game of survival everyone fights. No one quits. You quit and you die. So any society or nation that feels like it is under existential threat will utilize every potential avenue to survive. This might mean using women for front line duty.

>>54322492
Because either the character is important and thus an exceptional person, or just an npc peasant and thus so inconsequential their gender makes no difference. A system like that would add nothing to the setting.

>>54322395
>Because i've seen hundreds of different settings where humanity is radically affected by this or that, so it's incredibly easy for me to suspend my disbelief.
No you haven't. You've seen hundreds of different settings where humanity is superficially affected by this or that, but ultimately develops into something we can easily recognize as human society.

>>54322553
Ok, then tell me what do you consider to be ''radical'' change? Because this anon
>>54320439
>>54320804
(or anons) talked about gods being real, and i've seen plenty of those and much more radical. So what exactly are you talking about?

>>54322493
>In a game of survival everyone fights.
No, you dumb cuck. In a game of survival the stronger fight while the weaker breed more stronger warriors to fight.

This is basic military tactics nigger. You protect the archers while they pelt down the enemy with your footsoldiers.

In your absolutely retarded headcannon, everyone is a footsoldier, and the cost of fighting would be so high that your tribe/nation would disappear after a couple of battles because you ran out of women and now you can't meet the working demands of the tribe to feed everyone. So your entire nation collapsed because you were dumb enough to put the most important role of your land in the front line.

>>54322625
>the weaker breed more stronger warriors
Literally not how genetics work, you assbackwards mongrel

>>54322625

>No, you dumb cuck. In a game of survival the stronger fight while the weaker breed more stronger warriors to fight.

It takes a long goddamn time to go from getting pregnant to producing a soldier. If people are already at your border that's not going to do much.

>>54322395
I get the feeling you'd have your mind blown by Eclipse Phase.

>>54322704
>It takes a long goddamn time to go from getting pregnant to producing a soldier.
Not if people are being born every day.

>you would need 365 women

>>54322681
You are the most retarded person in the thread. Your genetics don't determine how strong you are, your chromosomes do.

>>54322739
>You are the most retarded person in the thread. Your genetics don't determine how strong you are, your chromosomes do.

Genetics: 1. The study of heredity and the variation of inherited characteristics.
2. The genetic properties or features of an organism, characteristic, etc

Chromosome: 1. A threadlike structure of nucleic acids and protein found in the nucleus of most living cells, carrying genetic information in the form of genes.

>>54322734
>post-apocalyptic transhuman sci-fi
Anything's possible.

>>54322625
I didn't know that it took 14 years to march from Paris to Berlin, you fuckstick. In your retarded head canon warfare apparently takes generations to conclude. The reality is it doesn't. Getting pregnant and sitting on your Adams for a decade isn't going to win your war it just ensures that the people who win not only get to take your woman but also raise your brat to kill for them later. Good job, dipshit.

>>54322608
Ones where humans don't have a concept of gender roles, for one.

>>54319433
So dragons are like a draught or flood or any natural disasters.
Which would do nothing to alter our course of evolution since we already have those.

>>54319573
> Magic exists
which are usually portaited as rare and difficult to obtain, which our civilization already faced with people with superior tech or medical knowledge. (see Voodoo)
A world where magic is not rare like are depicted differently to our world.

> Gods not only exist,
Plenty of people claimed they can perform miracle and people believed them through out history, including Jesus. That's not a change at all.

> People can become inhumanly strong and durable through sufficient training and experience

A world's strongest men competitor can pummel a nerd to the ground without effort. Having the scale of difference been boosted hardly makes a change to society.

> The unhappy dead can reanimate and devour the living
See the magic part

> Morality is an objective force that can be measured
Pretend we don't do that in the real world.

Non of your proposed idea really do a thing to the society as we formed these fantasy from our regular life experience..

>>54323590
>which are usually portaited as rare and difficult to obtain, which our civilization already faced with people with superior tech or medical knowledge.
Not even a close analogy. You're describing a situation where one culture has more technology than another. A world with rare magic would have those differences on an individual level, and they'd potentially be far more pronounced. As in, "medieval technology versus a soft science fiction robot"

>Plenty of people claimed they can perform miracle and people believed them through out history, including Jesus. That's not a change at all.
If you think that safe and effective healing being around throughout all of humanity wouldn't change anything, I don't know what to tell you. Or weather manipulation, or blessings, or anything else ascribed to people who claimed they could do miracles. And you're ignoring how society would be impacted by the ability to actually communicate with the Gods, and vice-versa.

>A world's strongest men competitor can pummel a nerd to the ground without effort. Having the scale of difference been boosted hardly makes a change to society.
The world's strongest man still bleeds out when stabbed with a spear.

>Pretend we don't do that in the real world.
We don't. We claim we have objective morality but then subjectively decide on it anyway, and there's certainly no way to measure it. That's why people can get away with crimes as long as there aren't any witnesses, for example.

People like you are why fantasy is so lazy. You're too afraid to stretch your imagination, and just assume any changes would leave things exactly the same except for the specific thing being changed.

>>54317573
Detailed doesn't mean autistic anon.